Re: Admission field in QSPEC -- was RE: Review of draft-ietf-nsis-qspec-18.txt
Francois Le Faucheur IMAP <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.nsis |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hello Jerry, On 27 Feb 2008, at 12:56, Gerald Ash wrote: > All, > > John writes in http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nsis/current/ > msg08243.html: > > John> Just some background history. There are 3 documents defining > similar > John> fields > John> > John> tsvwg-emergency-rsvp > John> nsis-qspec > John> dime-qos-parameters > John> > John> We discussed this on this list and at previous IETF meetings. > John> My view of consensus was that... > > I've seen no discussion on the list either before or after the > 'Proposed Resolution' was posted on 3 December at http:// > www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nsis/current/msg08155.html. which suggested to us that the proposal was acceptable to the group. > This is just presented and not explained. AFAICT no co-authors of > the QSPEC document participated actively in the off-line discussion > or explicitly agreed to the proposed resolution. Just for the records, all the qspec authors (but you) were part of the discussion that lead to this proposal. One of them (Dave) actually participated actively and contributed to the proposal. The only reason you were not in the list is because you were believed to be retired (and I think the only email address we had for you was no longer reaching you). Have you considered the possible compromised approach to indicate in QSPEC that the ITU values/semantics MAY be used (as opposed to MUST be used)? Francois _______________________________________________ nsis mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nsis